On January 1, the police department of Paradise Valley, Ariz., released
the name of Kansas State football star Ell Roberson to the media as an accused
rapist.

Roberson

No
charge had been filed: no arrest made, then or now. Roberson denied the
accusation leveled against him mere hours before, early that morning.
The Paradise Valley police simply "outed" an accused rapist before completing
an investigation. The process of how police departments deal with sexual
assault accusations should be overhauled.

The
police seemed to knowingly inflict damage on Roberson with little evidence
to do so. Lt. Ron Warner reportedly
told journalists that there was "no supporting evidence, no witnesses,
no physical injuries" surrounding the alleged rape. "We have two opposing
descriptions of what happened," he concluded. Paradise Valley Police
Chief John Wintersteen subsequently explained, "the
investigation is not done." Medical tests on the accuser had not returned
when Roberson's name hit TV, nor were they expected until early the next
week.

Why
was Roberson thrown to the media?

Two
factors probably played a large role: Careers are made by prosecuting celebrities;
and, the legal system has grown callous toward those accused of sexual
abuse.

With
regard to career-making, the police's timing was interesting. Roberson
was scheduled to play the next day (Friday) in the Fiesta Bowl against
Ohio State. Speculation on whether his coach would pull the star quarterback
flooded major news channels. When Roberson played after being cleared by
a university investigation, nationwide debate on the decision ensued. Sportscasters
wondered about how the accusation may have affected the game: Ohio State
won. Waiting for such niceties as medical results might have made police
and county attorneys miss out on publicity.

With
regard to callousness, the Paradise Valley police were stepping in the
footsteps of recent, similar prosecutions.

Colorado
District Attorney Mark Hurlbert, who is prosecuting Kobe Bryant on rape
charges, recently apologized
for T-shirts about Kobe that originated in his office. One T-shirt
read: "I'm not a rapist; I'm just a cheater." Hurlbert admitted that
he and co-prosecutor Greg Crittenden each received a shirt but claimed
not
to know the source.

Santa
Barbara County District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon joked
with reporters during a Nov. 19 press conference to announce that
an arrest warrant had been issued for Michael Jackson for child abuse.
A sample: "I
hope that you all [journalists] stay long and spend lots of money because
we need your sales tax to support our offices." Why was he laughing?
Because child abuse is funny or because he thinks the charges against
Jackson are
a joke?

The
publicity surrounding celebrity cases is extreme but elements of it are
also present in low-profile prosecutions. For example, whenever an official
announces a "get tough" campaign on sexual assault, success is measured
by how many assailants are prosecuted or imprisoned. This provides incentive
to publicize prosecutions.

Or,
rather, to publicize one side of those cases. The accuser's identity is
protected.

Why?
The stigma our society attaches to those accused of rape is at least as
strong as that attached to rape victims. And, at the point of accusation,
neither is presumed to be innocent or guilty.

The
answer will come back: because women must be encouraged to report rape
without feeling intimidated. But it is equally valid to argue that accused
men must be encouraged to defend themselves without feeling that the police
and prosecutors will use the media against them. If the goal is to protect
the innocent, the obvious solution is to name neither party until after
a trial verdict. But police and prosecutors do not advocate this remedy.

And
for a good reason. Justice requires transparency, not secrecy. Many safeguards
for justice aim at openness: public access to courtrooms and court records,
the right to face an accuser, the right to cross examine witnesses, trial
by jury, etc. There may be valid reasons to seal a specific case but a
whole category of crime, such as rape, should never be pushed into judicial
shadow.

A
key reason for transparency is to discourage false
accusations. This is also why police conduct investigations and why
courts presume a defendant to be innocent.

How
common are false allegations of sexual assault? No one knows. And the more
anonymous accusations become, the less likely it is that solid statistics
will emerge. One of the best studies remains that of the now-retired Purdue
University sociologist Eugene J. Kanin. Kanin examined
reports of forcible rape lodged with the police force of a small metropolitan
town from 1978 to 1987. There were 109 accusations; 45, or 41 percent,
were discarded as false.

Forty-one
percent seems remarkably high but it does indicate the urgent need to
take false accusations seriously. The law should apply its own standard of "presumption
of innocence" by naming an accuser as well as the accused, or naming
neither. It should prosecute the filing of false reports as vigorously
as it does
valid ones.

As
it stands, those who prosecute rape allegations are losing credibility.
A legal system that mongers gossip to the media before concluding investigations,
that prints humorous T-shirts about defendants and uses press conferences
for comic relief does not engender trust in justice. It is a threat to
justice in-and-of itself.

Wendy McElroy is
the editor of ifeminists.com and
a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She
is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new
book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan
R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Other related articles: (open in a new window)

Rape, or disappointing sex? by Karen De
Coster
(May 8, 2000)
Was popular Macomb County Sheriff William H. Hackel a rapist or was he just guilty
of disappointing sex? On April 27, he was convicted of rape. Karen De Coster
weighs in on the verdict